mossberg going after drop in trigger manufacturers

Status
Not open for further replies.
alexander45

alexander45

Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2013
Messages
697
Location
really hot place
It would appear that mossberg is suing any and all manufacturers that make a drop in trigger for the ar15 platform. As It stands it looks like mosberg has chip McCormicks patent for a ar15 specific drop in trigger and is using that to go after ever one who has ever made one including the latest added to their list timney triggers.

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2016/05/20/breaking-mossberg-suing-manufacturers-drop-triggers/

Any thoughts? It looks like they may be in the right on this one even if super douchie
 
Mercy!!
Perhaps Glock should sue Mossberg for copying the trigger blade safety Glock invented??

rc
 
Pretty sure Glock did sue people back in the day. If they had a patent I think it would have expired by now.

No matter, this seems like a reach by Mossberg unless their patent is very broad.

Not a lawyer.
 
See this cat? And this bag? Yeah, the cat is no longer in the bag...
 
Perhaps Glock should sue Mossberg for copying the trigger blade safety Glock invented??
Click to expand...

pretty sure Iver Johnson invented that one decades before Mr. glock bought his first injected molded machines for cameras.

Course there is a difference in who owns the patent.
 
If you hold or own the rights to a design regardless of who invented you have the right to protect it from infringement. There's a lot of manufacturers out there that spend more time coping others ideas than creating their own. There are very good reasons for international patient laws.
It sounds like Mossberg is well within their rights to pursue this.
 
Isnt the drop in trigger part of Stobers original design? (I really don't know as I'm not an AR guy).

If it is/was, it seems odd that McCormick got the patent in the 1st place.

But aside from all that....


I don't have a problem with trying to keep the intellectual property they own.

If those were Chinese companies being sued, I bet most here would applauding Mossberg and railing about how China copies/rip-offs everything, takes our jobs, and doesn't invent anything.


The fact is, patents encourage innovation because it forces new designs to be created.
 
Isn't every AR trigger a "drop in" trigger? I mean, two pins, set the trigger in place.

Does that mean I'll have to put the original trigger back in?

Say it ain't so, Joe!

Mark
 
Looks like I won't be buying any new Mossberg products anytime soon. Disappointing, since otherwise I liked them as a company, generally speaking.
 
Mossberg purchased the AR drop in trigger technology and patent? Why would such a technologically savvy company need to purchase technology? Just look at some of Mossberg’s latest developments in firearms technology.

First there is the tactical chainsaw shotgun.

http://www.mossberg.com/product/500-tactical-chainsaw-50460/

Then there is the tactical lever action rifle.

http://www.mossberg.com/category/series/464-spx-lever-action-rimfire-rifles/

These are true milestones in firearms technology.
 
It looks like mossbergs clame rests on the fact that the trigger pack uses 2 through pins to install as the "new and novel feature" but considering the svd trigger pack uses one through pin and the two used in the chip patent are the pins that hold the original trigger bits in its not particularly "new or novel" but we will see what a judge says
 
Typical "patent troll", buy patents and try to extort money with threats of lawsuits.

it seems odd that McCormick got the patent in the 1st place.
Click to expand...
Seems a lot of prior art would support this. Lets root for the "little guys" who are the real innovators here. Unless Mossberg has done this quietly, under the radar, the usual modus operandi of the patent troll is to extort initially from companies that can't afford the legal fees to fight, by going after "everyone" they might band together to fight it.

When a big gun plays the patent troll and goes after another big gun, like Oracle vs. Google, far reaching precedent usually results, after many years of legal battles. I consider Oracle the troll here as they sure didn't invent Java, but the results will have far reaching consequences for "open source" projects and innovation.


but considering the svd trigger pack uses one through pin and the two used in the chip patent are the pins that hold the original trigger bits in its not particularly "new or novel" but we will see what a judge says
Click to expand...
Sad but true, lawyers don't think like normal people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hq
Geissele isn't affected since they still use the two pins the way they were intended so my trigger source is secure. :D
 
I have no problem with people perusing legitimate claims. In this case, however, I don't see how the patent survives the prior art from Taiwan.

Mike
 
I guess the big deal is about pins going through hollow pins :rolleyes:.

I should patent "anti-walk" Chicago screws going hollow pins. And licence it cheaper than Mossberg.

Does Mossberg even make a drop in trigger pack?
 
Chicago screws
Click to expand...

Interesting , That was my idea but my screw would be different in a few ways . I was thinking the same thing though . There patent has the word pin(s) in it at least 8 times . Not once does it say anything about screws or fasteners . Seems like a real easy work around . The drop in trigger manufacturers may have to pay back royalties but changing to a screw would seem to get around future royalties .
 
A drop in unit is a complete ready to use trigger assembly contained within an enclosure that "drops in" the lower as a single unit and is pinned in place. The standard trigger and that of several aftermarket makers is a group of parts and springs that must be assembled and installed separately.
 
Patents aren't what they used to be.

A few years ago, the law changed so that it became much more difficult to defend your patent. In many cases, they are hardly worth the effort to obtain them and the fees to maintain them.
 
denton said:
Patents aren't what they used to be.

A few years ago, the law changed so that it became much more difficult to defend your patent. In many cases, they are hardly worth the effort to obtain them and the fees to maintain them.
Click to expand...
IMHO, this is a good thing, for a long time, way too much was patented which , again in my opinion, was not novel, inventive, non-obvious, or enabled.
Google "swinging patent", apparently the examiner grew up in a country without swings and didn't realize the obviousness and that it was well known in playgrounds. It is only not still in force because the kid didn't pay the maintenance fees.
On the plus side, there's the case of a Donald Duck cartoon blocking granting of a patent to raise ships with little balls or some such.
 
buckhorn_cortez said:
The patent is #7,293,385 issued to Michael L. McCormick in 2007.
Click to expand...
What is this? I've spent most of the winter consulting my patent lawyer and considering the scrutiny patent applications are subjected to - despite we're method patenting a number of technologies based on a natural phenomenon which is quite a bit more difficult - I can't even imagine how this one has ever been granted. Considering how loosely the trigger mechanism is defined, they might as well have patented a doorknob.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

B
  • Locked
Drop-in trigger for DPMS LR-308 AP4
Replies
2
Views
618
DnPRK
D
L
  • Locked
AR-15 Replacement Trigger
Replies
8
Views
886
Zeke Menuar
Z
S
  • Locked
Mossberg jumps on the "Accu-trigger" band-wagon, too....
Replies
10
Views
1K
Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
D
D
  • Locked
What is the best AR replacement trigger?
Replies
18
Views
3K
P-32
P
S
  • Locked
Anyone stopped Mossberg trigger unit cross pin from walking out?
Replies
9
Views
2K
Sheepdog1968
S
Back
Top